public inbox for gcc-prs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Steven Bosscher <s.bosscher@student.tudelft.nl> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, Subject: Re: optimization/9052: in C code, "if" statement fails to execute if optimized Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 16:36:00 -0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20030212163601.4993.qmail@sources.redhat.com> (raw) The following reply was made to PR optimization/9052; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Steven Bosscher <s.bosscher@student.tudelft.nl> To: Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com Cc: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, phama@webjockey.net, Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr> Subject: Re: optimization/9052: in C code, "if" statement fails to execute if optimized Date: 12 Feb 2003 17:30:01 +0100 Op wo 12-02-2003, om 17:24 schreef Richard Earnshaw: > > > Reading specs from > > /opt/experimental/lib/gcc-lib/i586-pc-linux-gnu/3.4/specs > > Configured with: ../gcc-trunk/configure --disable-nls --with-gnu-as > > --with-gnu-ld --prefix=/opt/experimental --program-suffix=-3.4 > > --enable-languages=c > > Thread model: posix > > gcc version 3.4 20030211 (experimental) > > > > Output from this testcase: > > gcc version: at -O0 at -O1 at -O2 > > 2.95.3 22 22 22 > > 3.4 exp. 22 256 256 > > > > After uncommenting the printf, gcc 3.4 also prints 22 at -O1 and -O2. > > > > I have looked for documentation about this change in behavior but it > > doesn't seem to exist. I'm not a floating point specialist, but > > generally, comparing floats for equality doesn't seem like the best > > thing to do. However, since it apparently worked with older gcc > > versions, I suppose one could qualify this as a regression... > > > > Eric, I CC'ed you as the Great C Bug Squasher. Do you think this is a > > regression, and if so, change the status in GNATS? > > Adding -ffloat-store will probably also make the "misbehaviour" go away. > > GCC is almost certainly using the register result from the current > iteration to compare with the memory result from an earlier iteration. > Since the register result has excess precision the compare for equality > fails. That's not a bug, it's just the FP works on the X86. > > So in summary, almost certainly "not a bug". Pfewww, good. Still it is a change in behavior of the generated code. Should it be documented? Greetz Steven
next reply other threads:[~2003-02-12 16:36 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2003-02-12 16:36 Steven Bosscher [this message] -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below -- 2003-02-18 10:41 ebotcazou 2003-02-14 21:16 Toon Moene 2003-02-13 21:56 Eric Botcazou 2003-02-13 19:46 Toon Moene 2003-02-13 11:56 Eric Botcazou 2003-02-12 17:06 Steven Bosscher 2003-02-12 16:56 Eric Botcazou 2003-02-12 16:46 Richard Earnshaw 2003-02-12 16:26 Richard Earnshaw 2003-02-12 15:26 Steven Bosscher 2002-12-24 5:36 phma
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=20030212163601.4993.qmail@sources.redhat.com \ --to=s.bosscher@student.tudelft.nl \ --cc=gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org \ --cc=nobody@gcc.gnu.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).